- Posted by karthik on October 9, 2009
In meetings with current and potential clients, we always hear this comment at the highest levels of IT management. Almost always, the context is around a business need or pain that can be managed using a tool like SharePoint (in their own words) but that's where the thought stops, for whatever reason.
When it happens once, its an anamoly; When it happens twice, it could be a coincidence; but when its more that that, it is either reality or a perception of it! So it got me thinking and that is a scary thing 
In the process of trying to put context around it and address the issue of perception or a lack thereof, I have come up with some thoughts. These thoughts are not grounded in facts or stats, so bear with me.
At work, I am often approached by my counterparts in the Business Development side of things who start the conversation with - "We have this organization that is interested in SharePoint....."; My usual response is "What do they do?" followed by "Why are they interested in Sharepoint?"
At some point, it starts to become clear that, like most medium to big sized orgs, there has been an evolution of "organized chaos" within the enterprise that has now resulted in a million legacy technology applications doing "custom business" things, with a billion artifacts (in the form of documents/emails/other types of unstructured content) being stored across the entire IT ecosystem. Usually when this system reaches a stage bordering business pain is when organizations start thinking about strategy as it relates to "managing the chaos".
As an example, most organizations traditionally do not care about how much file content is being stored in hardware based file storage systems because stora
ge cost has never been an issue. So it is okay to have IT create a file share for the Marketing department that ends up using the share as a document/image repository for all of their big file needs. However, when the repository scales out to gigabytes of content with no structure or hierachy, then it is IT that ends up having to troubleshoot issues and maintain those systems. Since IT has no clue what is inside that repository, they do not have an efficient or timely way to support and manage the expectations of end users, whose biggest need right now is to find the "right file/s" and they can't do that because the thing is just too unwieldy!
This has a direct impact on productivity, efficiency, frustration with work tasks, frustration with IT and so on and so forth...Now, you may think this is not applicable to your organization because you have this built-in auto-magic sense system that just works. Reality is, the way you work within that system is probably not the same way that your colleague does or for that matter anyone else. And guess what, that is typical; Unless and until there is STRUCTURE around what you do and the same rules apply to everyone within that system no matter how you do it, you cannot have an expectation that your need is being met in a way that matches your requirement.
This is where SharePoint comes in. It forces you to adopt a "methodology/framework/process/tool" that brings that "order to your chaos". Notice that I am intentionally ambiguous about whether it is a "methodology/framework/process/tool" because SharePoint can be all of that; Or just some of that; or just one of that. As (my newly adopted favorite) phrase goes, "It depends!"
Now, what does all this have to do with blog title, you ask? If you have made it this far, then the answer is...........there is not one!
In the next post, I will pen down some thoughts on how to tackle a SharePoint conversation that seems to lead towards this context and the information you can use to answer this question.
- Posted by karthik on April 1, 2009
While rummaging through some old documents, I came across a list of MOSS keywords I had created to explain MOSS terms in a way that would make sense to non or semi-technical folks. Some tidbits are below:
Key Terminology:
Branding – Refers to overall site layout and design; Covers Colors, Themes, Global Page Structure and Display
Master Pages, Images, Style Sheets
Master Pages: Consists of globally branded UI elements of the site design that do not vary across pages. It is usually composed of Images, Static HTML and Style sheet references along with place holders of page specific content that is dynamic nature.
Ownership: IT
Customization – Refers to page design that is common across a subset of pages; Covers Content elements design for a group of related artifacts
Page Layouts (Templates), Page Controls (Modules), and Re-usable controls (Components)
Page Layouts: Templates that define the static structure of images and HTML to be positioned on the page in conjunction with dynamic areas of the page that are content managed. Defined conceptually by designers and created in collaboration with IT; Page layouts are usually with a specific master page and cannot be linked to multiple master pages
Page Controls: Controls that are page specific and perform dynamic data processing to retrieve information from a database backend managed outside of MOSS; Page controls are outside the purview of content management and are tied specifically to a single page layout
Re-usable Controls: Components that are shared across page layouts and/or master pages that allow for specific code functionality to be re-used across the site; Components are based off a code framework that is designed for sharing between page layouts and/or master pages and changes to a component affect all places where the component is being used
Ownership: IT
Content Management – Refers to instance pages that inherit from a page layout and are designed for content management within portions of the page
Page Editable Areas (HTML Editor), Drag and Drop Web Parts (HTML Editor Web Part)
Instance Page: Page that is created from the MOSS Site Content and Structure interface by end users and configured for content management
Ownership: Content Managers, Designers and End-Users
- Posted by karthik on February 10, 2009
Question: Is there an easy way to get a WCM site in MOSS 2007 without going through all the hoops that you showed us?
Answer: Yes and no. Yes, it is easy to set up a web app on an internal authoring (windows) zone and extend the zone to the Internet. The authoring of content is done by authenticated users and the internet zone is configured for anonymous access only. The reason I would go with no is because of the fact that this scenario is not designed for customization, branding or custom development.
Question: What is the best way to handle unstructures sharepoint development and content growth in my company?
Answer: There is no easy answer to this one. My recommendation is usually to engage with resources (internal or external) who understand the importance of planning, design and structure for an enterprise Sharepoint deployment. Sharepoint is a very powerful set of tools and as such requires a significant level of planning for any major deployment scenario. Too often, I have heard people share stories about how their company's "MOSS" project turned from a simple website with documents to a "sharepoint sprawl"
- Posted by karthik on January 25, 2009
It's amazing to see how MOSS built in workflows are so in tune with what you would see happening in business processes real time. I have only scratched the surface with OOTB workflows for Content Approval for the project that I am working on, but am a believer already!
Below is a scratch of what we used to model the existing business process as it related to WCM approval.
Initially, after an intense discussion, this was what came out of the thinking behind what we needed to have within MOSS. After further deliberations and some wringing of hands and heads, it condensed down into three custom settings in a serial workflow with appropriate groups and notifications! More details to follow in my next post!